Hon’ble Dilip Gupta, J.—The Respondent nos. 1 to 3 are represented by Shri Amit Sthalekar, respondent No. 4 by the learned Standing Counsel, respondent No. 6 by Shri V.P. Mathur, respondent No. 11 by Shri Rishi Chaddha and respondent Nos. 13 to 16 by Shri Krishna Ji Khare, Advocate. Respondent Nos. 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 had been served through registered post at the address of the Registry of this High Court where they are working.

2. This Special Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 29.11.2006 of a learned Judge of this Court, by which the writ petitions of the petitioners-appellants have been dismissed.

3. The High Court issued an advertisement in 1999 to fill up 135 posts of Routine Grade Clerks (hereinafter called the ‘R.G.C.’). A select list containing the panel of 165 candidates was prepared, out of which 135 candidates had been appointed.

4. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners before the learned Judge was that as their names appeared in the waiting list, they should have been offered appointments in view of the provisions of Rule 10 (4) of the Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter called the Rules 1976) but the High Court arbitrarily appointed the private respondents without following the due procedure as not even the advertisement was issued. This contention was rejected by the learned Judge holding that as all the 135 vacancies advertised had been filled up, the selection process stood exhausted and waiting list could not be utilised thereafter; appointments of the private respondents were in accordance with the provisions of Rule 45 of the Rules 1976 which empowers the Chief Justice to pass such orders, as he may deem fit, in respect of recruitment, promotion, confirmation or any other matter.

5. Shri K.M. Singh, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently urged that the appointments of private respondents should be quashed on the ground that they had been appointed illegally and arbitrarily without even advertising the vacancies; appellants being the candidates in the waiting list ought to have been appointed in case the vacancies occurred during the life time of the said select list.

6. Shri Amit Sthalekar, learned counsel for the High Court has placed a very reliance upon Rule 45 of the Rules 1976, which confers unfettered powers upon Hon’ble the Chief Justice to make appointments without complying with the other provisions of the said Rules. He further submitted that the appointment could be made even without advertising the vacancies as the said Rule contained non obstante clause, which would prevail over all other Rules contained therein. Further, only 135 posts had been advertised and all of them had been filled up, thus selection process stood exhausted and the appellants could not claim any relief. He further submitted that Rule 10 (4) of the Rules 1976 cannot be treated to be a reservoir to fill up the vacancies whenever the same occur in future, as it has categorically been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that appointment cannot be made over and above the number of vacancies advertised. Petitioners/appellants could not maintain the writ petition for quashing the said appointments on the ground that the same had been made without advertising the vacancies, as they had no locus standi. In past, most of the vacancies in Class-IV and some in Class-III had been filled up in the same manner and nobody raised the finger to the said appointments made by the Chief Justice.

7. Thus, in view of the above, it has to be seen whether the provisions of Rule 45 of the Rules 1976 can be read completely ignoring the provisions contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as the said Rule gives unfettered power upon Hon’ble the Chief Justice to pass such order as he may consider fit in respect of recruitment and as to whether the consideration of Hon’ble the Chief Justice in a particular case is permi